{"id":1476388,"date":"2026-07-30T19:28:40","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T18:28:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.squawka.com\/en\/?post_type=features&p=1476388"},"modified":"2026-07-30T19:28:42","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T18:28:42","slug":"arsenal-net-spend-mikel-arteta-premier-league-clubs","status":"publish","type":"features","link":"https:\/\/www.squawka.com\/en\/features\/arsenal-net-spend-mikel-arteta-premier-league-clubs\/","title":{"rendered":"Arsenal net spend under Mikel Arteta: how do the Gunners compare to every Premier League club?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Mikel Arteta took charge of Arsenal<\/a> on 20th December 2019. Since then, the Gunners have rebuilt their squad, their standards and, yes, their transfer bill.<\/strong> We’ve taken a look at the Arsenal net spend<\/a> since the Spaniard arrived in North London.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Arteta era has taken Arsenal from Europa League drift to Premier League<\/a> title races. That rise has been fuelled by clear coaching, sharper recruitment and a lot of money. The interesting part is not just how much Arsenal have spent, but how little they brought back in sales until very recently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using Transfermarkt<\/a> fees, converted from euros into pounds at \u20ac1 = \u00a30.8555, Arsenal’s net spend since Arteta arrived sits at approximately \u00a3751m<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arsenal net spend under Mikel Arteta by season<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Season<\/th>Spend<\/th>Income<\/th>Net Spend<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
2020\/21<\/td>\u00a373.6m<\/td>\u00a316.4m<\/td>\u00a357.2m<\/td><\/tr>
2021\/22<\/td>\u00a3143.2m<\/td>\u00a326.9m<\/td>\u00a3116.3m<\/td><\/tr>
2022\/23<\/td>\u00a3159.3m<\/td>\u00a320.4m<\/td>\u00a3138.9m<\/td><\/tr>
2023\/24<\/td>\u00a3201.1m<\/td>\u00a359.2m<\/td>\u00a3141.9m<\/td><\/tr>
2024\/25<\/td>\u00a392.1m<\/td>\u00a371.7m<\/td>\u00a320.4m<\/td><\/tr>
2025\/26<\/td>\u00a3252.0m<\/td>\u00a311.9m<\/td>\u00a3240.2m<\/td><\/tr>
2026\/27 (to date)<\/td>\u00a368.4m<\/td>\u00a332.5m<\/td>\u00a335.9m<\/td><\/tr>
Total<\/strong><\/td>\u00a3989.7m<\/td>\u00a3238.9m<\/td>\u00a3750.8m<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The numbers tell their own story. Arsenal have not just bought one expensive player and called it a rebuild. They have layered the squad window after window, from Thomas Partey and Gabriel Magalhaes, to Ben White and Martin Odegaard, to Declan Rice, Kai Havertz, Martin Zubimendi, Eberechi Eze and Viktor Gyokeres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is not scattergun spending. It is a sustained attempt to build title-level depth. But it has also required Arsenal to absorb a huge gap between purchases and sales. For most of the Arteta era, the club have been much better at upgrading the squad than monetising the players leaving it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arsenal’s biggest Arteta-era transfer fees<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Declan Rice remains the biggest outlay of the Arteta years, costing around \u00a399.8m from West Ham United. Kai Havertz follows at roughly \u00a364.2m, while Zubimendi, Eze and Gyokeres all sit in the same expensive neighbourhood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The biggest sales are smaller by comparison. Emile Smith Rowe, Folarin Balogun, Eddie Nketiah and Joe Willock all brought in useful money, but Arsenal have not had the kind of \u00a380m to \u00a3100m outbound deal that can transform a net-spend table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Premier League net spend since 2020\/21<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The table below ranks the current Premier League clubs by net spend from 2020\/21 to 2026\/27, the first full season after Arteta’s appointment through to the current window. It uses the same Transfermarkt fee basis and currency conversion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
Rank<\/th>Club<\/th>Spend<\/th>Income<\/th>Net spend<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>\n
1<\/td>Chelsea<\/td>\u00a32006.0m<\/td>\u00a31089.4m<\/td>\u00a3916.5m<\/td><\/tr>\n
2<\/td>Tottenham Hotspur<\/td>\u00a31181.6m<\/td>\u00a3366.0m<\/td>\u00a3815.5m<\/td><\/tr>\n
3<\/td>Manchester United<\/td>\u00a31095.5m<\/td>\u00a3330.1m<\/td>\u00a3765.4m<\/td><\/tr>\n
4<\/td>Arsenal<\/td>\u00a3989.7m<\/td>\u00a3238.9m<\/td>\u00a3750.8m<\/td><\/tr>\n
5<\/td>Manchester City<\/td>\u00a31237.8m<\/td>\u00a3625.1m<\/td>\u00a3612.7m<\/td><\/tr>\n
6<\/td>Liverpool<\/td>\u00a3954.3m<\/td>\u00a3478.9m<\/td>\u00a3475.4m<\/td><\/tr>\n
7<\/td>Nottingham Forest<\/td>\u00a3723.6m<\/td>\u00a3404.4m<\/td>\u00a3319.3m<\/td><\/tr>\n
8<\/td>Newcastle United<\/td>\u00a3855.7m<\/td>\u00a3589.8m<\/td>\u00a3265.8m<\/td><\/tr>\n
9<\/td>Ipswich Town<\/td>\u00a3277.9m<\/td>\u00a397.3m<\/td>\u00a3180.6m<\/td><\/tr>\n
10<\/td>Fulham<\/td>\u00a3326.6m<\/td>\u00a3188.3m<\/td>\u00a3138.3m<\/td><\/tr>\n
11<\/td>Sunderland<\/td>\u00a3227.3m<\/td>\u00a397.5m<\/td>\u00a3129.8m<\/td><\/tr>\n
12<\/td>Bournemouth<\/td>\u00a3599.4m<\/td>\u00a3516.1m<\/td>\u00a383.3m<\/td><\/tr>\n
13<\/td>Crystal Palace<\/td>\u00a3401.5m<\/td>\u00a3322.3m<\/td>\u00a379.2m<\/td><\/tr>\n
14<\/td>Brentford<\/td>\u00a3350.5m<\/td>\u00a3272.0m<\/td>\u00a378.5m<\/td><\/tr>\n
15<\/td>Aston Villa<\/td>\u00a3723.6m<\/td>\u00a3648.9m<\/td>\u00a374.8m<\/td><\/tr>\n
16<\/td>Everton<\/td>\u00a3413.3m<\/td>\u00a3341.2m<\/td>\u00a372.1m<\/td><\/tr>\n
17<\/td>Brighton & Hove Albion<\/td>\u00a3669.5m<\/td>\u00a3602.2m<\/td>\u00a367.3m<\/td><\/tr>\n
18<\/td>Leeds United<\/td>\u00a3487.7m<\/td>\u00a3453.9m<\/td>\u00a333.8m<\/td><\/tr>\n
19<\/td>Coventry City<\/td>\u00a392.6m<\/td>\u00a391.3m<\/td>\u00a31.4m<\/td><\/tr>\n
20<\/td>Hull City<\/td>\u00a353.8m<\/td>\u00a375.2m<\/td>-\u00a321.5m<\/td><\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figures are rounded to the nearest \u00a30.1m. Transfermarkt lists fees in euros, with undisclosed fees, free transfers and loans without stated fees counted as \u00a30. The comparative Premier League table covers full seasons from 2020\/21 onward, while the Arsenal total above also includes the club’s January 2020 business after Arteta’s appointment.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Arsenal’s net spend says about the Arteta project<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Arsenal sit fourth among the current Premier League clubs in the full-season comparison, behind Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United. That is not a small detail. The Gunners have spent like a club determined to move quickly, but their rise has still looked more coherent than several other expensive projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The difference is that Arsenal’s spending has usually had a clear squad-building logic. Rice raised the midfield ceiling. Havertz gave Arteta tactical flexibility. White, Gabriel and Timber changed the defensive base. Odegaard became the attacking hub. The squad now looks designed rather than collected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That does not make the net spend irrelevant. A title-winning team built on heavy investment is still a title-winning team built on heavy investment. Arsenal’s next challenge is to make the model more sustainable, because the best teams do not just buy well. They sell well too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2024\/25 season hinted at that shift, with around \u00a371.7m received and net spend cut to roughly \u00a320.4m. Then 2025\/26 arrived and Arsenal went big again. Very big. A rebuild becoming a super-squad is fun, but the bill still lands on someone’s desk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The verdict<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Arteta’s Arsenal have not been built on bargain hunting. They have been built on premium recruitment, aggressive backing and a willingness to correct weak spots quickly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The return has been obvious: Arsenal are a serious Premier League force again. The caveat is just as clear: until the club turn more squad players into serious fees, this remains a high-spend project rather than a self-sustaining one.<\/p>\n\n\n

Read more:<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n